I know this has been mentioned before, but I think it's worth a separate discussion.

From the BBC:

Uefa boss to scrutinise Manchester City's Etihad deal

Manchester City's sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways will be analysed by Uefa's financial fair play (FFP) boss.

In a 10-year deal reportedly worth £400m, Etihad now sponsors both the club's shirt and the stadium.

But with City and Etihad sharing Abu Dhabi links, critics have claimed this is an attempt to circumvent European football's strict new financial rules.

City declined to reply, although the club have previously said speculation over the figures was "not accurate".

When asked what his reaction was when he first heard about City's deal, the chairman of Uefa's Financial Control Panel, Jean-Luc Dehaene, said:

"I had some questions, yes.

"You know where the problems are and you know you will have to confirm them. But on the other hand they are all members of the ECA (European Club Association) and if they don't follow the rules they won't have the support of the other clubs.

"But it would be dangerous for our authority if we take judgements without facts."

The 71-year-old former Prime Minister of Belgium confirmed his panel would "benchmark" all deals to make sure they were "fair value".

"If we see clubs that are looking for loopholes we will act," he said.

"It is not enough to say 'we've got a sponsorship contract and that's OK' if the contract is out of line."

As well as the shirt and stadium, Etihad also sponsors The Etihad Campus which is being developed around the ground. This will create an expanded academy, sports science centre and training ground, as well as office and retail space and a 7,000-seat stadium for youth games.

All of this investment is exempt from the FFP rules as it is not deemed football-related. Any income accrued, however, does count.

In an exclusive interview with BBC Sport on Monday, City's chief executive Gary Cook said the deal was "unique".

"The Ethihad Campus, which constitutes some 210 acres is unique in its breadth, depth and length of term," he said.

"It involves the tradition, which is shirt sponsorship, the naming rights of the stadium, but what we haven't seen in football is a campus, creating a place to be, to work.

"We've got a great relationship with Ethihad. It's a long-term programme and they are equally very excited by it."

Cook added that City's recent spending was "not sustainable" but was needed to quickly attain Champions League football.

Manchester City have been the focus of intense scrutiny ever since an Abu Dhabi-based consortium led by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan bought the club in 2008.

The club made a loss of £93m in 2008-09, £121m in 2009-10 and last year's figures, due in September, are expected to be even worse, despite an increase in turnover partly due to a number of lucrative sponsorship deals with other Abu Dhabi-based companies.

Etihad Airways, for example, is owned by the Abu Dhabi government. The oil-rich state's ruler, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is Sheikh Mansour's half-brother.

LINK

Edited August 16, 201114 yr by Hutch

This could basically turn out to be a test case by UEFA, the upshot of this will either make or break FFP.

That's right. If the case goes against Man City, they could find themselves with all kinds of problems. Otherwise, as you say, the FFP regulations will have been shown to be ineffective and riddled with loopholes.

Yep, if this is allowed surely GAZPROM can just inject all of Roman's money into the team with no bother at all to him. I can see it now, a half empty 120000 seater stadium, prawn sandwiches as far as the eye can see, and Malouda still making the first team.

Isn't that the dream?

Definitely will be interesting, and as you guys say, the acid test for FFP. Another quote that may end up being telling that I saw recently was an official talking about following the "spirit" of the FFP laws. Well then, why did they make so many loopholes for a tema to use then? We are no exception, given the fact that contracts signed before a certain date dont apply, and that helped us immensely.

But if they really intend to look at the spirit of the laws, then that could be a differnet matter. Our City brethern said the whole area around the staidum is being redeveloped. Apparrently, the cost of that wont be put on the club's books, but all the revenues will. Dont exactly know how that works if its not tied to the club. Surely, and improvements to the stadium itself have to be paid for by the club, so how is the adjacent ground, youth staidum, training center, etc, not all lumped in with that?

The regulations should have been tougher to circumvent, IMO, but been started in a year or two's time and made 100% right off the bat. UEFA and the clubs obviously want the door shut on alot of money coming in, so Malaga and PSG are going to have to climb the ladder quickly.

And I cant help but feel that Torres was purchased by Roman with these regulations in mind. Yes, he cost alot of dough, but the potential for marketing and shirt sales is huge when he is one of the faces of Adidas.

Reminds me of what John Henry said when this deal first went through: "how much was the losing bid?" Saying that, FFP is misguided and isn't even really that fair. It's more like the top clubs pulling the ladder up. Why not make every league in Europe divide TV income equally between each club or reform the Champions League so the vast pot of money isn't just shared between the same small group of clubs year in, year out?